dmu3tem wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 7:46 pmThe question is whether in general such issues are so prolific as to make a translation really awkward for composers to work with.
More to the point, the texts are very difficult for the average parish cantor. The days of the music for one verse fitting the music for the others are gone. As an example, my attempt at Psalm 80 (79) for 1 Advent B and 4 Advent C: Verse 1 has six bars. Verse 2 has 10 bars and Verse 3 has eight bars.
dmu3tem wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 7:46 pm Unless you do statistical comparisons between different translations I don't think we will get very far.
Not much needed in the way of statistics. The Grail Psalms have an underlying rhythm which make them singable. Abbey Psalms and Canticles has ditched rhythm and poetry in favour of literal translation.
You inadvertently raise an important issue about parish cantors (one verse setting suits all). The tendency, especially with published music, is to write for the lowest common denominator; as by definition one is aiming at as large a market as possible. There is also the fact that rehearsal time with a cantor is short (I usually have 30 mins. maximum); and anyway a new piece has to 'succeed' first time around given people's impatient reactions to 'new music', especially if written by composers they have never heard of. If you write for a specific parish the situation is different, as you are writing for a particular set of skills. When these are limited then you have to write accordingly; and usually I find it harder to produce something 'good' in such situations. On the other hand the danger with making music as easy as possible is that you do not stretch more competent performers and they then vote with their feet. Furthermore many psalm texts have big mood swings which demand different musical approaches. Verses with different lengths then are not necessarily a problem but add to a wider challenge; and one's response may well put greater demands on the cantor unless you are very lucky with creative inspiration and can produce something simple. Sophistication then gives you greater means to respond sensitively to text.
Today, I have just been looking at the psalm text for Palm Sunday (Ps. no. 22). Three of the four verses have 4 lines; the final verse has 5; just the sort of irritation that has been discussed. That extra line I dealt with simply by repeating the voice part for the previous line with a different cadence at the end. I was able to do this because of the chord progression I was using across the whole verse. More to the point though is the shift in mood from unrelieved gloom in verses 1-2 to more positive ideas in verse 4 (verse 3 shows the beginning of this transition). The composer is being asked to do something different, even if this just means changing the dynamics and articulation; and one can exploit the major-minor aspects of each triad built up from the seven basic degrees of the scale you are using. Furthermore that final verse needs to be longer so that this more positive mood is balanced against what has gone before; so the extra line makes perfectly good sense to me. 'You will fear him, LORD, give him praise...' as opposed to 'All who see me deride me...' at the beginning. This itself leaves the problem of the final response, whose text is still gloomy: 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' as it clashes with the mood of verse 4. My reaction has been to add after that a two bar version of my keyboard introduction in a major, as opposed to minor key. (G major vs E minor). I am not sure whether this has really dealt with the problem; but it illustrates how technique can go a long way towards sorting such difficulties out.
